Pro- And Anti-Refugee Protestors Meet At Idaho State Capitol

On November 21st, 2015, a rally to show support for the immigration of Syrian refugees took place on the steps of the Idaho State Capitol building. Across the two lanes of Jefferson Street, a group that included the III% of Idaho had assembled in Capitol Park in counterprotest. Both sides held signs, spoke into bullhorns, waved flags, chanted, and occasionally shouted at the other side. A few protestors would occasionally cross the street to engage in debate, which was contentious but civil.

The anti-refugee protest.

The pro-refugee protestors outnumbered the anti- group, about 700 to 300 according to KTVB.com. I mingled with both groups, taking pictures and chatting with protestors. The arguments I heard on both sides were predictable, with those pro-refugee protestors favoring subisidized immigration, and anti-refugee protestors arguing that terrorists are among the refugees.

I thought it was interesting that while conservatives claim to be, or are thought to be, the bastions of Christian thought in America, the pro-refugee group had the only signs displaying Scripture.

The anti-refugee group also seemed to express more rage, with a few of them flipping off pro-refugee protestors or carrying signs that espoused outright racism against Syrians.

Not that I’m fooled by the pro-refugee crowd. Most of them were liberals, and while they seem more effete than the motorcycle leather- and Carhartt-attired antis, I know that all it takes for liberals to show their fangs is to challenge them on simple economic issues. Even suggesting that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing immigration garnered some askance glances. After all, these are the people who became indifferent to the waging of brutal war as soon as Barack Obama was elected.

The antis held signs for Act! For America, as well as signs advocating the prohibition of Islam and one that was outright racist. “Security First, Then Compassion” one sign read. I’m sure the Founders would be proud. They adopt the style of the American Revolution, yet cheer on the debasement of the principles embraced by those revolutionaries.

A pro-refugee sign held by one of the protestors.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of political discourse that neither side of the issue really gets it. The antis have had their property confiscated, leaving them to angrily protest when the government uses that property in ways with which they disagree. The pros have also been expropriated, reducing their ability to help those in need through private charity. Their faith in government is misplaced, as their stolen property will be lost to bureaucratic waste, given to brutal regimes that victimize the same refugees they wish to help, and sent to pay debts for wars that created the refugees in the first place. Yet they will ardently support taxation all the same.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

The government has no legitimate claim to any property. Everything it has acquired it has done so with violence or threats thereof. If it chooses to make some perfunctory effort to help some refugees, it does so to maintain the façade of government as a service provider. If the political class were to do what it really would prefer, that is, squander the money it acquires satisfying its lavish preferences, the illusion would cease to convince.

It can make no legitimate claim to any property whatsoever. As such, it cannot legitimately order the subsidized importation of immigrants, nor turn them away. That right wholly belongs to the individuals with rightful claims to property. Property owners should be free to accept immigrants at their discretion, while other property owners should be free to deny them with equal discretion, and those preferences should be respected. Neighbors should be free to peacefully attempt to sway each other one way or another, without coercion. All of them should keep the full product of their labor, which they can use toward whatever ends they desire.

The repeal of illegitimate authority should not be contingent upon abolishing other forms of aggression. When the government places quotas upon the importation of refugees, it effectively bars entry to any refugees once its arbitrary quota has been met, denying them access where property owners would accept them, and denying the property owners the right to give charity to those same refugees in the way they see fit.

Because government officials cannot engage in economic calculation, its quotas for immigration are completely arbitrary. It cannot know what quantity of refugees an economy can support. It cannot know the individual preferences for each person within its borders, and whether they would be willing to accept refugees, and if they were willing, how many, or if they would prefer to accept no refugees at all. The quantity of refugees is chosen based on political pressure, so as not to overly agitate their electorate.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

-Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Unfortunately for all of us, including the protestors in Boise today, very few are interested in stopping the plunder. They seek only to control it through political means.

Altar & Throne

Help Support Altar & Throne

Do you like what you're seeing here? Help support us to keep the content comin'!

Bitcoin:

Paypal:

Affiliate

Many of us here at Altar & Throne have had our horizons expanded through Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, and believe in and endorse this product. Join today to get the education you've never received before!